Miracles: An introduction

Miracles

Critiques

David Hume: 'Of Miracles'

Philosophy of Religion

Recently added to the site

Information: This article introduces and discusses issues related to the notion of miracles, and in particular whether they are logically possible Divine occurrences and how to verify these if they are. The article David Hume: 'Of Miracles', is a further discussion and critique of these issues. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

Introduction

Most people who believe in God would say that miracles can and do occur, and would probably claim that they have either witnessed a miracle in their own or another person's life. These people would no doubt also claim that miracles are evidence that God exists, otherwise how and why would miracles occur. For example, in the video below a woman tells her church how she was healed by God, and that this is proof that her Christian faith is true:

Many Christians also claim that the resurrection of Jesus was a miracle, which validated his claim to be the only way to God (John 14:6). In the Gospel of John, it says that the miracles of Jesus were also intended to show people exactly who he was:

'Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.' (John 20:30)

Of course, it is not only Christians who believe that miracles occur in order to validate the truth of their faith. For instance, this video submitted to You Tube shows things upon which the written name of Allah is said to have miraculously appeared.

Other people who have submitted similar videos to this one, say that the appearance of Allah's name on various objects is a miracle intended to show that Islam is the true faith.

Now there are many people who do not believe that miracles can and do occur, and want to challenge (or dismiss) the belief that they do. Some also want to deny that a miraculous event occurred as people say it did, or they say the testimony of the person experiencing the miracle cannot be trusted. The philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) was one such person who argued this way. He suggested that the validity of miracles can also be challenged, whenever one finds people of different faiths attempting to use them to show that their faith is true. His point is that miracles cannot be occurring in lots of different religions to show that they are all the true faith (mainly because many religions hold contrary beliefs to each other), and that either one, or more, or all of the claims to these miracles must be false (For more on Hume's discussion of this matter see David Hume: 'Of Miracles').

Scientists generally dismiss the possibility of a miracle occurring, as they say that if they did then these events would upset the regularity, order and balance of the laws of nature. It is interesting that although many believers would tend to dismiss the scientific challenge to miracles occurring, they may appeal to scientific evidence (or scientific methods) to prove that a miracle has occurred.

God on the edge or in the midst of things

It is normal to find people defining a miracle as an event caused by a supernatural being (or force), which runs contrary to expected modes of behaviour or 'laws of nature' (i.e. it contravenes the normal system of things). In fact, many believers claim that God can (and does) act in the world in this way. However, the notion of a miracle as something performed (by God) from 'outside' the 'normal system of things', might be said to be misleading. For instance, the Christian philosopher C. Stephen Evans says that since God is the sustainer of all things, this must mean that God is always involved with and "inside" his creation'.

Person diving into a pool The idea that God is 'outside' of creation, but acts in it now and again, may be compared to someone sitting on the edge of a river; occasionally dipping their toe into the water. They are not actually in the river, but the act of dipping their toe into it disturbs the normal flow of the water. However, C. Stephen Evans does not like this idea of God 'sitting on the edge of things', and would rather we imaged God to be more like someone actually in the river, because only then would God's 'swimming around in it' be seen as a normal thing for God to do.

The problem with understanding God as a Being who acts in the world from outside of it, is that this has implications for science, which operates according to the notion that the world is an enclosed system of things. Now taking the view that on occasion God acts in the world from outside of this 'system', begs the question as to how God does this, and how this does not disrupt the normal order of things. Yet if we take the view that God acts from within the normal realm of things (as C. Stephen Evans suggests), we are left with the problem of explaining how God is different to the world, and how we might recognise a miraculous event if this does not contravene the normal ways things work.

David Hume's definition of a miracle

The philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) set out the most well-known definition of a miracle:

'A miracle may be accurately defined as a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.'

In his famous critique of miracles, Hume begins with the idea that there is a 'normal system of things' which a 'miracle' transgresses. However, what counts as a 'law of nature'? Is it that the universe operates according to a strict system of 'laws', or is it that so far as humans have observed, the universe exhibits a certain regularity (which we call 'laws of nature')? In other words, are 'laws of nature' prescriptive (what happens all the time) or descriptive (what we have observed happening up to now)? Being concerned to base knowledge on experience, Hume would take the latter view. He would argue that we can only describe the 'laws of nature' on the basis of what we have perceived to have been happening in the world (and universe) up to now, but that we have absolutely no reason to assume (or claim to know) that this will continue to be the case in the future.

'The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction... That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. We should in vain, therefore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood.' (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section IV, Part I)

Hume's point is that our knowledge of the 'laws of nature' (e.g. the sun will always rise), is based solely on our experience of what has occurred so far in the world (and universe), and also our habit of projecting this knowledge into the future (thus resulting in a prediction of what we believe should and will occur). However, this is only an assumption of what might occur; we have absolutely no way of knowing or proving that what has happened in the past, is going to continue to occur in the future. So from the outset, one might might want to challenge the idea that a miracle is a transgression of a 'law of nature'.

Although Hume was an atheist and critical of the possibility of genuine miracles occurring, his theory of knowledge (epistemology) actually allows for the possibility of a miraculous event happening. For if the 'laws of nature' are not fixed, then there might be a chance that in the future God could act contrary to them.

Thomas Aquinas on miracles

Around five hundred years earlier, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 CE) had offered a similar definition of a miracle to that of Hume, defining it as, 'those things... which are done by Divine power apart from the order generally followed in things'. However, he actually differed from the latter Humean definition as he said miracles were also:

'Those events in which something is done by God which nature could never do.'
'Events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in that order.'
'When God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature.'

What is noticeable about Aquinas' understanding of miracles, is that he allowed for the possibility of miracles to occur within the 'system' of 'natural activity' (something Hume's definition would leave out). Aquinas also allowed for the possibility that God's activity with the natural realm, may be part of the normal order of things. However, this begs the question; if God is acting within the normal order of things, how do we know when (or if) a miracle has occurred?

Pills and a bottle For example, what if someone was to say that God cured their fever (a miracle), yet without any 'natural laws' being broken. In other words, although the fever naturally went away, it was still God who cured this person. In cases such as this, how are we to know that a miracle has occurred? This would be like saying God cured someone of a sickness, because they took the right medicine. In this instance, was it God who cured them or the medicine, and if we say God cured them through the medicine, how different is this to simply saying that they were cured because they took the right medicine? Although Aquinas' definition allows us to explain how God might work in the world (something Hume's does not), it begs the question as to how we can recognise those times when God might have actually done so.

Here's another example:

'Suppose... that a crucial bolt on a airliner is about to fail, and that in response to prayer for the safekeeping of those on board God miraculously fuses the bolt. To all outward appearances the flight is uneventful; nevertheless the safe arrival of the plane is a miracle.' (Evans C. S., Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith, IVP, 1985 p.110)

God has again worked within the system of 'natural things', and a miracle has occurred. Yet how can we begin to validate this miracle? There are no visible signs of God doing something, and there is no 'evidence' that anything has happened. Yet something is said to have happened! Does this mean some (or all) miracles are to remain beyond human validation, and merely speculated on as to when, or if they have occurred?

Maybe the problem of empirical verification is a reason why Hume left out the idea of God working within the natural order of things, in his definition of a miracle?

Miracles and coincidences

Miracles are often said to happen to teach people something, or to authenticate something (or the calling/ministry of someone). For example, Jesus' healing of paralysed man is said to authenticate (validate) his claim to be able to forgive sins ('That you may know that the Son of Man [Jesus] has authority on earth to forgive sins... I tell you get up, take your mat and go home' - Mark 2:2-12 [Bracket mine]). However, if miracles are intended for these reasons, we would need to know that a miracle has occurred. Therefore, unless one can actually see something happening, we have no reason to assume that anything has happened.

This then raises the question as to how one can distinguish between a miracle and a coincidence. Now one could say that the distinction is simply that the former is always the work of God, but why not make all coincidences be God's work too? Of course, if coincidences are always miracles (and vice versa) then we have a.) the problem of knowing one has occurred, and b.) what God is teaching someone through this 'event'.

Author's note: I am reminded here of a story someone told me about how God had worked things out one morning, so that she got on exactly the right train she needed to catch during rush hour in London - and this despite the fact that she had got up late! Now I ask you; was her catching the train a coincidence, or did God actually re-arrange the movements of the entire London transport system (and the lives of everyone using it), just so that this woman (who had got up late) might be able to get on the right train at a certain time and day? And if so, what was God teaching her through this; that it does not matter if you are irresponsible and get up late (she was always late for everything)? Would it not have been better if God had worked a 'miracle' so that she missed the train, and through that learnt to be better organised?

In order for a miracle to teach people something, or to authenticate something (or someone), it must surely be an observable supernatural phenomena along the lines of a 'transgression of a law of nature'. Coincidences do not appear to do this. Many atheists would claim to see coincidences happening in their life, but do not attribute these to the actions of a God. If God is acting in their life in this way, then the evidence for God doing so is not very clear them.

Debates about miracles

By now it should be evident that there are two central issues in debates about miracles:

Is it fundamentally possible for a miracle to occur?
How can we verify that a miracle has occurred, and show this to be an act of God?

Our knowledge of the way things are at the quantum level, and the fact that we do not have absolute knowledge about the way things operate everywhere in the world and universe, should leave us rather unwilling to close the door on the first possibility that events might occur which transgress the 'laws of nature'. However, the problem then is how to verify that this something God has done.

Modern philosophy now takes for granted that we each interpret our 'experience of reality', and that we all have a unique perspective on the world. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), introduced us to the notion of 'seeing-as' and 'language games', and in doing so he radically altered our understanding of the way we learn and experience things in the world around us.

Looking through a pair of glasses For instance, although people assume they can attain pure knowledge of things in the world, Wittgenstein (embracing some Kantian insights), argued that we cannot. Instead, we are all born into a certain social, cultural, religious, and moral context, which radically affects and shapes how we see things. Also, we only tend to allow ourselves to see the world in this way (because this is deemed normal to us). Thus in terms of miracles, believers in God will naturally see God working in the world in a certain way, and will have no problem talking about miracles and God contravening the laws of nature.

Atheists on the other hand have no reason to suppose that unusual occurrences are anything other than coincidences, for they have no prior commitment to seeing the world in any other way. So this means that debates about miracles may essentially be reduced to a matter of personal perspective, for if God is actually working in the world in a real and unique way, then this should be evident to everyone, everywhere - all the time.

Miracle (www.dictionary.com)

An effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
An effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
A wonder; marvel.
A wonderful or surpassing example of some quality: a miracle of modern acoustics.